In re: Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC ( 2021 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE: : Chapter 11 WOODBRIDGE GROUP OF COMPANIES, : Bankr. Case No. 17-12560-BLS LLC, ef al., : (Jointly Administered) Debtors. ALANRBREL, SOS Appellant, Civ. No. 19-502-LPS Vv. : WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION TRUST, : Appellee. . MEMORANDUM ORDER WHEREAS, on March 14, 2019, pro se appellant Alan R. Brill (“Appellant”) filed a notice of appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s decision, In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, 2019 WL 647033 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 14, 2018), and the related Order (B.D.I. 3403) (together, the “Decision”);! WHEREAS the deadline for Appellant’s opening brief was set for July 29, 2019 (D.1. 14), but due to his continuing poor health and related hospitalization, he was granted several extensions (see D.I. 15, 16, 17 & 18); WHEREAS Appellant filed his opening brief on February 4, 2020 (D.L 19), and on February 28, 2020, the Woodbridge Liquidation Trust (“Appellee”) filed its answering brief and appendix (D.I. 20, 21); ' The docket of the Chapter 11 cases, captioned Jn re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-12560-BLS (Bankr. D. Del.), is cited herein at“B.DI..” WHEREAS, on April 2, 2020, Brill filed a motion to extend his reply deadline so that he might file his reply by April 7, 2020 (D.L. 22) (“April Motion to Extend”); WHEREAS Appellant filed neither his reply brief nor a request for further extension of the reply deadline; WHEREAS, on May 27, 2020, the Court issued its Memorandum and Order affirming the Decision and denying the April Motion to Extend (D.L. 23, 24); WHEREAS, on June 15, 2020, Appellant filed the “Further Appellant Medical-Induced Plea for Additional Time to Respond to Appellee Answering Brief’ (D.I. 25) (“June Motion to Extend”); WHEREAS, on June 25, 2020, Appellant filed his notice of appeal of the Memorandum and Order (D.I. 26), which has been docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit as No. 20-2347 (D.I. 27), WHEREAS the Court has concluded, based upon the issuance of the Memorandum and Order and Appellant’s subsequent appeal, that no relief can be granted with respect to the June Motion to Extend; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The June Motion to Extend (D.L. 25) is DENIED. 2. Civ. No. 19-502-LPS shall remain CLOSED. UNITED S‘ATES DISTRICT JUDGE □